aspects of hebrew enlightenment satire saul berlin: involvement … · 2016. 11. 29. · kernan...

Aspects of Hebrew Enlightenment Satire

Saul Berlin: Involvement and Detachment

BY MOSHE PELLI

The name of Naphtali Herz Wessely, the 250th anniversary of whose birth fellin 1975/1976, is generally well known as one of the exponents of HebrewEnlightenment in Germany at the end of the eighteenth century. He is especiallyknown for the four pamphlets, Divrei Shalom Ve'emet [Words of Peace andTruth], which he published in 1782-1785, advocating changes in the old-fashioned, traditional Jewish education. Following the publication of the firstpamphlet, a controversy ensued between the traditionalists and the Maskilim[enlighteners].1 This controversy had a silent participant, a rabbi turned Maskil.Rabbi Saul Berlin, a controversial figure in his own right, came to the aid ofWessely.2 He wrote a satiric work, probably in 1784, but did not allow it to bepublished during his lifetime. The satire, Ktav Tosher [An Epistle of Righteous-ness], was published immediately after Saul Berlin's death (on 16th November1794), towards the end of 1794 or early in 1795. The Maskilim who publishedthe pamphlet apparently used a manuscript that had been circulating amongthem some ten years before.3 Although there was no apparent indication as tothe intention of the publishers, it is quite clear that they had wished to set it inprint as a token memorial to the deceased Maskil. For otherwise it would seemrather strange that they should publish an out-of-date satire which aimed at acontroversy that had been long forgotten. Wessely's "sins" by that time hadbeen forgiven, and he continued on his moderate Enlightenment course whichhad been interrupted by his Divrei Shalom Ve'emet. Nowhere in the pamphlet

^ n the controversy see Moshe Samet, 'Mendelssohn, Weisel, and the Rabbis of Their Time', inStudies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, Haifa, Israel 1970, pp. 249-253 [inHebrew], and Charles L. Ozer, 'Jewish Education in the Transition from Ghetto to Emancipa-tion', in Historia Judaica, IX (1947), No. 1, 2, pp. 75-94, 137-158. See also my article 'NaphtaliHerz Wessely's Attitude toward the Jewish Religion as a Mirror of a Generation in Transition(During the Early Period of Hebrew Haskalah in Germany)', in £«£sc/in/j fur Religions- undGeistesgeschichte, XXVI (1974), No. 3, pp. 222-238.

2On Saul Berlin see my studies: 'Some Notes on the Nature of Saul Berlin's Writings', in TheJournal of Hebraic Studies, I (1970), No. 2., pp. 47-61; 'Hareformah Hadatit Shel Harav"Haharedi" Saul Berlin' [The Religious Reforms of 'Traditionalist' Rabbi Saul Berlin], inHebrew Union College Annual, XLII (1971), pp. 1-23 [Hebrew section]. The most comprehensivebibliography of and on Saul Berlin was published by Moshe Samet, 'R. Saul Berlin Uchtavav'[Rabbi Saul Berlin and His Writings], in Kirjath Sepher, XLIII (1968), pp. 429-441. See alsoSamet's ' "Besamim Rosh" Shel R. Saul Berlin' [R. Saul Berlin's "Besamim Rosh"], in KirjathSepher, XLVIII (1973), pp. 509-523. A comprehensive, annotated bibliography of sourcesdealing with Ktav Tosher and a discussion of this satire appears in my essay 'Saul Berlin's KtavYosher. The Beginning of Satire in Modern Hebrew Literature of the Haskalah in Germany',published in LBI Tear Book XX (1975), pp. 109-127.

3 Cf. Israel Zinberg, ToldotSifrut Tisra'el [The History of the Literature of Israel], V. Merhavyah,Israel 1959, p. 122 [Hebrew]; Ben-Zion Katz, Rabanut, Hasidut, Haskalah [Rabbinate, Hasidism,Haskalah], I, Tel Aviv 1956, p. 240.

93

at Ohio State U

niversity on April 6, 2016

http://leobaeck.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

http://leobaeck.oxfordjournals.org/

94 Moshe Pelli

do the publishers cite the author by name, neither do they acknowledge hishaving died. As a matter of fact, they published the manuscript as it was, intact,leaving even the misleading chronogram, alluding to the year 1784, the date ofits writing, as if it were the date of publication.4

It may be safely said that the Maskilim who were responsible for the publica-tion were indeed very much aware of the timeless value of Ktav Tosher both as asatiric work of art and as a satire which could be used to enhance the cause ofEnlightenment beyond the limits of the Divrei Shalom Ve'emet controversy. Nolonger were the editors of Hame'asef, the journal of Hebrew Haskalah [Enlighten-ment] in Germany, adhering to the Enlightenment oracle's instructions not topublish satiric works. Ironically, it was none other than Wessely who insistedthat the young Hebrew Maskilim should not utilise the form of satire to furtherthe objectives of Haskalah.5 Indeed, it was one of the reasons why Berlin hadnot issued his satire in print.6 By this time the moderate line of the journal hadundergone a metamorphosis, as had the editorship of Hame'asef. In the firstyears of the journal, the editors resorted to fables and parables as a means ofadvocating their enlightenment objectives and of criticising and lampooningtheir adversaries. However, this policy had not been pursued by the more mili-tant editors. In 1790, Euchel - the first editor of the journal, who became a regularcontributor - published a work of satire, 'Igrot Meshulam ben 'Uriyah Ha ̂ eshtemo'i[The Letters of Meshulam . . . ] . 7 The editor himself, Aharon Wolfssohn, con-tributed his share to early Hebrew satire by publishing a closet-drama of hisentitled Sihah Be'ere $ Hahayim [A Conversation in the Land of the Living, i.e.,in the afterlife].8 Thus Saul Berlin's work of satiric fiction ought to be viewedagainst the growth of modern Hebrew satire as an artistic endeavour, culminat-ing in the Galician school of Hebrew Haskalah with the satiric works of JosephPerl and Isaac Erter.

Indeed, Ktav Tosher is a cornerstone of Hebrew satire, a testimony to SaulBerlin's artistic achievement, almost a unique one, in fiction. It is a highlysophisticated work, in which the author utilised very clever and witty techniquesof the satiric art, and employed the Hebrew language with a skill rarely seenin Haskalah literature before, as I have tried to show elsewhere.9 The literary4I elaborated on this subject in Appendix 1 of my article in LBI Year Book XX.sSee Wessely's letter published in the prospectus Nahal Habsor [The Brook 'Besor', or, GoodTidings] (1783), p. 8 [bound with Hame'asef, I (1784)]. Wessely reiterated his opposition to theuse of satire in 'Ma'amar Hiqur Hadin' [An Essay (on) Search of Justice], in Hame'asef, IV(1788), pp. 97,98, 165. This article was published also in book form and saw several editions.

•The other reasons: a. His father, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Levin's opposition to Wessely's DivreiShalom Ve'emet; Saul Berlin did not want to come out in public against his father, b. Berlin wasapprehensive lest the figure of the traditionalist rabbi in Ktav Tosher might be identified with hisfather, c. Since there was a criticism on Wessely implied, if not overtly stated, he did not wantto make it public.

''Hame'asef, VI (1790), pp. 38-50, 80-85, 171-176, 245-249. On Euchel, see my articles 'IsaacEuchel: Tradition and Change in the First Generation Haskalah Literature in Germany (I)',Journal of Jewish Studies, XXVI, No. 1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1975), pp. 151-165; part II, JJS,XXVII, No. 1 (Spring 1976), pp. 54-70; 'Jewish Identity in Modern Hebrew Literature',Judaism, XXV, No. 4 [100] (Fall 1976), pp. 447-460.Hbid., VII (1794-1797), pp. 53-67, 120-153, 203-228,279-298.•See my article in LBI Tear Book XX.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from


Aspects of Hebrew Enlightenment Satire 95

critics and historians who ignored Saul Berlin as a creative writer deprivedHebrew literature of one of its best writers. A reversal of this trend is, I believe,a debt that we owe to Hebrew literature as part of its overall re-evaluation.

The present study will undertake to examine three important components ofthis satire, namely, the role of the narrator, inner structures and motifs, and theoverall ideological objectives of the writer and their artistic unity as an inte-grating tool in this work.

I. THE NARRATOR

A significant insight into the unique nature of Berlin's satire may be gainedthrough an analysis of the dominant "persona" in Ktav Tosher. It is the first-person narrator who assumes the person of a rabbi, thus creating the impressionthat the renowned rabbi-author - "Migdolei Hador", one of the great personsin this generation - as mentioned on the title page, is no other than Saul Berlinhimself,10 although his identity is not revealed by name.

Berlin's predicament was indeed unique, being a practising rabbi himself andrelated to a well-known rabbinic family. In Saul Berlin's portrayal of the char-acter of the first-person narrator-rabbi one can discern that out of necessity theauthor had to resort to very sophisticated satiric devices. On the other hand,however, the careful student of Ktav Tosher may further find in the characterof the first-person narrator the projection of Berlin's own self-image. Beneaththe facade of the narrator-rabbi we find its contrasting image - that of a Maskil.Under the mask we see a committed enlightener who is charged with a sense ofmission and duty beyond the mere defence of Wessely. Thus it will be helpfulto distinguish in Ktav Tosher between the narrator-rabbi and the satirist-enlightener.11

10Ktav Tosher [An Epistle of Righteousness], [Berlin? 1794-1795?], on the title page. While noname is vised on the title page, a pseudonym does appear inside the book: 'Avdon ben HillelHayid'oni (pp. 13a, 16b).

uBy "satirist" I refer here to the author who is disguised behind the figure of the narrator-rabbi.Kernan uses the designation "satirist" to refer to the protagonist (Alvin Kernan, The CankeredMuse, New Haven 1959, pp. 7-8; published also in his Modern Satire, New York 1962, p. 167).The literature discussing Ktav Tosher did not make any distinction between the narrator and theauthor. Some writers even used the identical phrase "a conversation between the author and amelamed" (Simhah Asaf, Meqorot Letoldot Hahinuch Beyisrcfel, I, Tel Aviv 1925, p . 242; RaphaelMahler, Divrei Temei Tisra'el Dorot 'Aharonim [The History of Israel, Latter Generations], II,Merhavyah, Israel 19542, p. 78; Ben-Zion Katz, Rabanut, Hasidut, Haskalah, I, p. 240; JosephKlausner, Historiah Shel Hasifrut Ha'ivrit Hahadashah [History of Modern Hebrew Literature], I,Jerusalem I9603, p. 133.). That phrase could be traced to its apparent originator, Simhah Asaf.However, the identification of the narrator as "author" ("mehaber") could be traced to thefirst reviewer of Ktav Tosher in Hame'asef, VII (1796), No. 3, p. 268; the reviewer, D-A, isDov Ottensosser, according to Steinschneider. In 1861 Eliakim Carmoly picks up the term as hequotes verbatim from the first review in Hame'asef. See his Ha'orvim Uvnei Tonah [Ravens andPigeons], Rodelheim 1861, p. 41. Later on the term is used by Zinberg, Toldot Sifrut Tisra'el, V,p. 123 [all sources cited above are in Hebrew]. The only writer who does not identify the authorwith the narrator is C. Duschinsky, The Rabbinate of the Great Synagogue, London, London 1921,p. 21. But strangely enough, he identifies the narrator as "a modern youth". Duschinsky

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from


96 Moshe PelliBerlin writes from within the Jewish community as a narrator-rabbi. The

satirist-enlightener, too, would have it no other way. He writes ex cathedra, as arabbi, regarding himself as "one of the great persons in this generation". Andhis alter ego — the satirist - revels in it. In his authority as a spiritual leader anda religious scholar, he is on a par with his rivals.12 He speaks their language,uses their sources for his argumentation, and employs their talmudic andrabbinic methodology. In other words, he plays their game, and plays it verywell indeed. As far as the satirist within him is concerned, he is strategicallysuperior to his adversaries.13

Berlin does it mainly by portraying the narrator as being objective in thecontroversy. In the opening lines of the book, where he describes the commotionamong the people upon the publication of Wessely's controversial pamphlet, thedominant role of the narrator is as one who serves merely as a recorder, takingno sides in the dispute. By presenting himself as taking an objective stand, thenarrator would like to appear to the reader as a mediator, who would listen tothe two sides in order to seek the truth, and pass judgment on Wessely. He mustpersuade the reader that he is sincere and authentic.14 In addition, by pretend-ing to be objective, not knowing what the controversy is all about, the narratorprepares the background for the surprising denouement about the Kabalisticnature of Wessely's Divrei Shalom Ve'emet. To be sure, this record has beentampered with by the clever satirist. In the "quoted" enunciations by thepeople, one can hear the ironic echo planted by the satirist.

Consider the following sentence: "We were meritorious in having this honour[of being] a unique nation and a priestly kingdom."15 One would find it quitedifficult to dispute the authenticity of such a declaration as befitting the men-tality of the traditionalist people. Undoubtedly, that is the best compliment onecan pay to a satirist. However, this phrase must be examined against the back-ground of the Hebrew Enlightenment ideology. Moses Mendelssohn - the guideand master of Hebrew Enlightenment - argues in his writings that the Jewishnation was selected by the deity to convey and perpetuate the idea of mono-theism among the nations. The Jewish people - Mendelssohn implies - is nobetter than any other people,16 but indeed not inferior (as far as its rights are

apparently sensed the dichotomy that exists between the author and the protagonist, but erredin his identification of the latter, unless he considered "a modern youth" to be synonymous with"maskil".

12Ktav Tosher, p. 8b: "that he [the rabbi] speaks to a man like himself". The title page establishesthe author-narrator as "one of the great persons of the generation" ("Migdolei hador"). Theterm is being applied also to the fictional rabbi ("gadol" and "gedol hador" - ibid., pp. 8b, 10b,lib), thus putting the two as equals.

13The satirist must be desirous to portray himself as superior to his adversaries so as to achieve hissatiric objectives. Cf. Arthur M. Clark, 'The Art of Satire and the Satiric Spectrum', in Studiesin Literary Modes, London 1946, p. 47. See the ensuing discussion in n. 32-33 below, and theirrelated text.

14The narrator states it emphatically: " [ . . . ] to crown the truth among my people" (Ktav Tosher,p. 13a). Cf. Clark, Studies in Literary Modes, p. 36.

16Ktav Tosher, p. 2a: "ki 'al ken zachinu lechol hakavod hazeh [,] 'am sgulah umamlechetkohanim" (italics, in the English translation, are mine).

"Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, New York 1969, pp. 89,93, 117-119.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from



concerned). Mendelssohn and his writings were no strangers to Saul Berlin. Herefers to Mendelssohn's Be'ur in this satire,17 and if my interpretation is correct,Berlin even alludes to Mendelssohn's philosophy of Judaism - EnlightenmentJudaism, that is - in this satiric work.18 Importantly, prior to the Wessely con-troversy, Berlin wrote an approbation of Mendelssohn's monumental trans-lation into German and exegesis of the Pentateuch.19

In addition, there are some intrinsic proofs in Ktav Tosher as to Berlin's standon the alleged utter disregard for European culture and its secular knowledgeamong traditionalist Jewry.20

Thus the ironic implication of the quote is quite obvious. The narrator is verycareful to allude to unquestionable Haskalah beliefs - cited in the negative asquotes - which serve as guidelines for revealing the narrator's covert stand.

Gradually, Saul Berlin builds up the underlying ironical tone in his intro-ductory chapter where the legend for the correct reading is covertly presentedto the reader. He further employs certain accepted Enlightenment conceptsintended as guides, or criteria, for the deciphering of his covert intentions.Speaking of Wessely's alleged heretical tendencies, the narrator quotes the com-plaining people as follows: "For this is the manner of heresy which attractsman's heart by advising him to listen to wisdom, and to turn his heart [betempted] toward reason, and the little children are attracted by the ideas,which are planted in reason given as a godly gift."21 The narrator, reportingobjectively, incorporates within the quote which is critical of Wessely somepositive terms - wisdom and reason - so as to present the reader with the keyto the irony. Thus if wisdom and reason are positive concepts in the enlight-ener's eyes, Wessely's alleged heresy is no heresy at all. The narrator further in-tensifies his positive allusions by stating that reason is God-given.

The narrator also employs some sophisticated biblical allusions in order tohint as to his covert stand in his all-important introductory chapter. Citing thepeople complaining about Wessely's alleged heresy, he quotes them as follows:"all the mi?vot [commandments] and customs and the yoke which are on ourneck [and] are as a snail which melts away and is no more".22 The last part ofthe citation - the use of the simile - is a quote from Psalms 58:9, which is thenarrator's own contribution; for it is inconceivable that the people would usethis rare and difficult verse. Indeed its rarity and difficulty attest to its author-ship, and it is part of the double play of the narrator as the satirist, which Berlinis thus highlighting. The narrator - playing here his role as a satirist - is alreadyshowing his attitude by using the word "yoke" in reference to the mi$vot, which

"Ktav Tosher, p. 7b; the rabbi refers to Mendelssohn and to his translation into German of thePentateuch.

18Ibid., pp. lla, 12a-b, ch. 8; and see relevant discussion below.19<Haskamot Harabanim' [Rabbis' Approbations] in Netivot Hashalom [Paths of Peace], I,

Bereshit, Berlin 1783, p. 2b.20Ktav Tosher, pp. 2a, 4b, 5b.2lIbid., p. 2b: "ki chen darkah shel minut moshechet lev 'adam be'omrah lehaqshiv lahochmah

ulehatot lev latvunah, vehayeladim rakim nimshachim 'ahar hara'yonim, hanatu'a basechelmatat 'elodim netunah."

MIbid., p. 2a.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from


98 Moshe Pelliis his declared stand throughout this pamphlet.23 The simile in the Psalms verseis given originally in a negative context: this is the fate of the wicked, that theywould melt away just as the snail appears to melt as it crawls along. Therefore,the comparison to the migvot adds a negative tone to it. Furthermore, the snail,as one of the unclean creatures, indeed does not contribute positively to theimage of migvot. The figure of the snail carrying its shell adds to the notion thatthe mi$vot are a burden, yet an aimless and an endless burden. Significantly,Berlin added to the original Psalms verse his ending of the quote, "Ve'enenu"- and is no more. The voice of the people here is none other than the satirist'svoice covertly expressing his view on the mi$vot in Judaism.

In order to make his position clear to the reader, the narrator uses exclama-tory phrases such as "halilah" (God forbid!).24 At times he puts these ex-clamatory phrases within parentheses, as in: "(has milehazkir)" (mum's theword!).25 Both ways, the interjections are overdone to serve as satirical cluesfor the reader to note. These clues are interwoven with the many other ironicclues in the same paragraph and in the introductory scenes in general. Thistechnique is applied also within a monologue of the melamed [religious teacher],where a phrase in parentheses might be attributed to either the speaker or thenarrator. To the sophisticated reader, this ambiguity does not exist, for in themelamed he can hear his master's voice, as it were. In one such instance Berlinbrings to the fore the whole issue of the overemphasis on the study of Torah, towhich some rabbis allegedly objected, citing the exact phraseology which hadbeen used by both Maskilim and rabbis.26 This technique is further developedin the Hebrew satire in Isaac Erter's writings.27

II. THE NARRATOR'S INVOLVEMENT ANDDETACHMENT

It has been observed previously that the narrator endeavours to appear ob-jective in the controversy. However, at the end of the introductory scenes inchapter one, one notes certain developments in the narrator's stand: there aresome overt signs as to the narrator's true opinion of Wessely. The narrator isnot as yet ready to come out openly in favour of Wessely. For by so doing hewould destroy the whole momentum gained by "discovering" Wessely'srighteousness after the long tirades of both the melamed and the rabbi against23Krav Tosher, p. 3b - the many superstitious customs; p. 4a - the melamed praising the abundance

of mi^vot; also: pp. 5a, 9a, etc.M/6u/.,p.3b.zbIbid. Both expressions appear within five lines; they are repeated in the same sentence in p. 13a.26Ibid., p. 4a: "ki 'asur lilmod harbeh miqra [. . .] min'u bnechem min hahigayon." Cf. my

article 'Mordechai Gumpel Schnaber: The First Religious Reform Theoretician of the HebrewHaskalah in Germany', in The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXIV (1974), No. 4, p. 312.

27The author elaborates on this subject in his study of Erter which is to be published shortly in theProceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies. It is entitled 'Narrative Techniques ofIsaac Erter's Satire "Gilgul Nefesh" [Transmigration of a Soul]' (Hebrew). Another paper,'Satiric Modes in Isaac Erter's "Gilgul Nefesh" ' (Hebrew) was also submitted for publication.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from



him. His technique is that of an objective reporter describing his physicalreaction upon learning of the people's accusations against Wessely: "I beganto tremble." His physical reaction is clearly an external expression of his mentalreaction which is also described in the apparently objective reporting style:"my thoughts became confused". The explanation given by the narrator at-tempts to carry on the ostensible air of factual, objective statements, yet it isintentionally opinionated in Wessely's favour: "For I have known previouslythe man and his converse, his righteous heart and his pure spirit." 28

The narrator goes on to cite Wessely's works in a highly euphuistic languagein which rhymes are also used. Both are a characteristic of a learned Maskil,whose language is clear and poetic, and of a positive attitude towards the sub-ject discussed.29 By contrast, both the melamed and the rabbi are characterisedby the grammatically faulty language. There is no doubt as to where the nar-rator's sympathies lie.

Gradually, the narrator introduces the possibility that there has been amisunderstanding and that the hitherto righteous Wessely could not haveturned heretic. Berlin does this by having the narrator express his doubt in theform of "who knows [. . .] perhaps [. . . ] . " 3 0 The purpose of this approach is tomaintain the narrator's credibility as an unbiased bystander. In order tostrengthen the narrator's impartiality, he is led to reassure the melamed: "do notfear, for I am like you".31 Of course he is not, and even the melamed acknow-ledges the narrator's superiority,32 for indeed the satirist must be - and en-deavours to be - superior to his adversaries.33 In order to maintain the narrator'sostensible objectivity in the controversy, yet to hint as to his preference, themelamed is made to recognise the narrator's sympathy towards Wessely. He tellsthe narrator: "I saw that you love him [Wessely]."34 The narrator does not,and would not deny it.

At the encounter with the rabbi, too, the narrator achieves an air of objec-tivity by having the rabbi state: "I have known your ways, for you desire graceeven for the one who does not deserve it."35 The narrator's apparent toleranceis acknowledged and accepted by the rabbi. The rabbi is being portrayed assomewhat more progressive than the melamed in preparation for, and anticipa-tion of the former's final conversion and his recognition of the satiricallytwisted, Kabalistic [mystical] interpretation of Wessely's Divrei Shalom Ve'emet.MKtav Tosher, p. 2b.i9Ibid., pp. 2b-3a. Occasionally the melamed, too, speaks briefly in rhymes (p. 3a). See also the

beginning of chapter 6.30Ibid., p. 3a.31Ibid., " 'Al tira ki keficha 'ani." Berlin uses a unique biblical expression to show the narrator's

erudition and scholarship. The phrase appears in Job 33:6. There is also a touch of irony,which Saul Berlin, a master of the Hebrew language, utilises for his satire. The idiom "keficha"- like you - is ambiguous because of its rarity, for it literally means: [I am] "like your mouth".Indeed, the two are different in their language and style; the narrator's reassurance is pungentlyironic.

3Hbid.33Cf. Clark, Studies in Literary Modes, p. 47.3iKtav Tosher, p. 3a.35Ibid., p. 8b: "Va'ani yada'ti derachecha ki hafez hesed 'atah, va'afilu lemi she'eno hagun."

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from


ioo Moshe PelliFurthermore, the rabbi is the one who stamps the narrator as belonging to thetraditionalist camp by saying, "I know that you would be the first to lay yourhand on him" [Wessely, if found guilty].36

The first direct, overt expression of involvement on the part of the narratortakes place then. He relates his wish to suggest to the rabbi that "we and therest of the sages of the generation" should communicate with Wessely. Althoughhe associates himself with the traditionalists ("we") - or appears to be doingthat in preparation for his satirical defence of Wessely - the narrator in effectproposes to do what Wessely himself had requested in his pamphlet, namely,that the rabbis should write to him and start a dialogue with him, a requestwhich they ignored.37 However, before he is given the chance to speak up, therabbi puts his hand on the narrator's hand to stop him.38 There is an apparentironic, symbolic twist in this play of hands after the rabbi had told him beforethat he, the narrator, would surely be the first to lay his hand on Wessely; nowthe rabbi is the one who holds him back from his attempt to reach Wessely andsettle the controversy.

The narrator's involvement becomes stronger as he seeks to obtain Wessely'sbook, but is unable to. The motif of the search for an anti-traditionalist bookwhich everybody is talking about, yet no one, or few, have actually seen or read,is later developed in the satiric work of Joseph Perl, Megaleh Tmirin.39 Signifi-cantly, the book is given to him by the rabbi; indeed, the rabbi is being por-trayed as possessing the potential for being "converted". The narrator describesin detail his reactions after having read Wessely's book,40 and at this juncturewe see him as completely involved in the controversy. He no longer wears anymask. Like many a narrator in the Haskalah literature, the narrator in KtavTosher cannot remain aloof. He is involved in this controversy of Haskalah', heis committed, and he can no longer remain a bystander as he was in the be-ginning of Ktav Tosher. Filled with a sense of mission and with the notion thatthe fictional realia which he has created is as true, real and obligatory as realityitself, the Haskalah narrator would tend to re-create these in his fiction. In manyinstances it will be manifested in the way the narrator is commissioned - in hisown story - to spread the new truth which he had discovered and which is partof the Haskalah ideology. Thus as soon as the rabbi is "converted", realisingWessely's innocence, he commissions the narrator to write a book on the contro-versy and to put in it his persuasive defence of Wessely. He is instructed tofurther circulate the book among the Jews so as to spread the word of Wessely'srighteousness.41 Significantly, the rabbi is employing the phrase God said toGid'on upon his mission to save the Israelites: "and now go in this your might,

™Ktav Tosher, p . 8b.37Ibid. See 'Rav Tuv Levet Yisra'eF [Great Goodness for the House of Israel], Divrei Shalom

Ve'emet, Berlin 1782-1785, p. 39a-b.S8Ibid., p. 9a: "Vayasem yado 'al yadi."39Ibid., p. 8b. See Joseph Perl's Megaleh Tmirin [Revealer of Secrets], Wien 1819; Isaac Erter,

'Gilgul Nefesh' [Transmigration of a Soul], in Ha^ofeh Levet Tisra'el [Watchman for the Houseof Israel], Wien 1858, p. 48.

MIbid., pp. 10b, lib.ilIbid., p. 12b. Gf. Joseph Perl, Bohen gadiq [Trying the Righteous], Prague 1838, pp. 118, 120.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from



and you shall save this honourable, wise and wonderful man [Wessely]".42 Thenarrator's mission is likened to the saving of Israel. Of course, within the con-text of this satire, the commission by the rabbi serves as a justification for theostensibly objective narrator to side with Wessely in the controversy. It is furtheran indication - within the satire - of the rabbi's complete conversion. ThusBerlin's success in his mission to find the truth is underlined within the develop-ment of the plot.

It should be pointed out that Perl and Erter exhibit the same literary pheno-mena in their satiric writings; however, it is by no means limited to satire.43

III. INNER STRUCTURES AND MOTIFS

In spite of the apparent disorder and the chaotic presentation of reality withwhich a work of satire is generally characterised,44 the artistic work of satiremust have a unified concept of reality as well as a clear point of view or ideology.The satirist-artist is not content with merely attacking his adversaries, out ofwhich attack his Weltanschauung may be deduced by the reader. Neither is hesatisfied by the mere assumption that the reader would resort to reversing hisironies in order to find out the underlying message in the satire. The satirist-artist would attempt to convey his truths - all-encompassing truths - throughouthis work, using very subtle devices. Those are not merely devices which high-light one technique of the satirist - as I have elaborated upon elsewhere45 - butthere are some underlying concepts which serve as the core of a given artisticwork of satire. These concepts nurture the totality of his work which is connectedto them and dependent on them.

The title of this satire, Ktav Tosher, is of import in this regard. It strikes anumber of chords. Berlin employs a phrase used also by Wessely in the secondof his series of four pamphlets, Divrei Shalom Ve'emet.ie It is indeed ironic, yetquite meaningful, that a work of satire is called "An Epistle of Righteousness",thus alluding to the nature of the book. It is a further irony that in the finalanalysis, although Wessely is proven innocent of heresy, the message is that hewas not destined "to clear the road" for Haskalah*1 Definitely, it is the purposeof Saul Berlin to employ this title as an allusion to its biblical origin. It is basedon the verse in Ecclesiastes 12:10: "The preacher sought to find out acceptablewords: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth." Theauthor assumes the role of Qphelet; he "taught the people knowledge" (verse 9)as does the author of Ecclesiastes, and he "set in order many proverbs" [or,

42Ktav Tosher, p. 12b: "ve'atah lech bechohacha zeh vehosha'ta 'et ha'ish hanichbad hehachamhanifla." Cf. Judges 6 : 1 4 . '

*3See M. D. Brandstaedter, Kol Sipurei M. D. Brandstaedter [The Complete Stories of M.D.B.],I ,Krakaul895,p .69.

"Cf. Kernan, The Cankered Muse, pp. 7-8; same is published in his Modern Satire, p . 167.4sIn my study in LBI Tear Book XX."Wessely, 'Rav Tuv Levet Yisra'el,' Divrei Shalom Ve'emet, on the title page."Ktav Tosher, p. 16b.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from


102 Moshe Pelli

parables] {ibid.); Ktav Tosher is indeed a parable of Enlightenment, its ideo-logical struggle and its desired success.48 But above all, he conveys the idea of"Havel havalim [. . .] hakol have?' (vanity of vanities [. . .] all is vanity) (verse8). It is the notion of scepticism, abundant in the book of Ecclesiastes, that isthe hub of this work. The world of stability, of certainty and of one definitivereligious truth no longer exists. All events in the story are geared to indicatethis metamorphosis. Wessely turns out to be not what he appears to have been;his Divrei Shalom Ve'emet is not as simple as it looks, but is a mystical work ofKabalah; and the religious leader, symbol of the traditional, uncompromisingviews, does change his outlook about Wessely from one extreme to the other.Words and concepts, which were clear and meaningful till then, not only be-come ambiguous and ambivalent, but may even reverse their meaning alto-gether. Thus "heresy" is turned to "the words of a living god", according to thenarrator's concept of Kabalah, and derogatory and ugly enunciations aboutthe deity are the exact reverse in the Kabalah, as it is able to contain contra-dictions.49 The logically impossible becomes possible through Kabalah.

The underlying relationship to the book of Ecclesiastes is not only inferred,but is stated openly by the narrator who attempts to equate the methodologyemployed by King Solomon, the traditionally accepted author of Qphelet, withthe one allegedly used by Wessely in his controversial book.60 The scroll("Megilah") ofQphelet is said to be a work of Kabalah - very much like Wessely'sbook - and the seven vanities in its first verse refer to exalted and sublime lights.At this point the narrator states that he [too] writes this scroll (Megilah),"written upright, words of truth and peace". This phrase, highlighting in boldtype the title of the book, is intended to relate the book of Qphelet to KtavTosher.51

The critical spirit of Qphelet is the spirit of Ktav Tosher; it accepts no authority,no God-given, infallible truths, no accepted set of values which are indispensable.Very much like some of the European enlighteners, and like a colleague of his,Isaak Satanow, Saul Berlin introduces scepticism - in the core of his book - asthe only sure and stable value in the modern world.52 Undoubtedly, it is aparadox; but that is the epitome of Berlin's personality and phenomenon. Theparadox is further the very representation of Berlin's concept of the world, aworld of paradox, a world in paradox.

One other device which Saul Berlin uses to implement this overall structuraltheme is foreshadowing; as in the other devices and techniques employed hereby the author, it is used in an ironical fashion so as to serve his satiricalgoals. He does it especially in the first chapter, and mainly in the first paragraph.Two examples will suffice to illustrate this point.

48The Hebrew "Mashal" means both proverb and parable. "Qphelet" is the book of Ecclesiastesas well as the author.

i9Ibid.,pp. 14a, 13b.50 Ibid., p. 13a.&1Ibid., "Katuv Yosher" citing the verse, as different from "Ktav Yosher" the title of the satire.52See my study 'Isaac Satanow's "Mishlei Asaf" As Reflecting the Ideology of the German

Hebrew Haskalah', in ^eitschriftfiir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, XXV (1973), No. 3, p. 242.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from



The narrator speaks of "our customary practices which are pleasing to andacceptable by God in heaven".53 This opening remark sets the ironic tone forthe whole work, right from the start. For in the following pages Berlin goes onto illustrate what are the customary practices which please God; namely, themany, many superstitions, nonsensical and meaningless activities deemed bythe people as religious acts.54 This covert ridicule of superstitions turns out tobe a leitmotif in Ktav Tosher, serving as an ironic unifying element in thestory.

Similarly, the narrator expounds in the opening paragraph on the chosennessof the Jewish people, as follows: "We were meritorious to have this honour [ofbeing] a unique nation and a priestly kingdom." 55 It has been already observedthat this sentence must be read in an ironic tone. It should be construed as aforeshadowing device for Berlin's leitmotif throughout the satire. He keepsrepeating the same idea, in a few instances, using language that alludes to hisironic statement in the first paragraph.56 The ironic concept is closely relatedto the expressed utter contempt for the non-Jews and their culture on the partof the traditional protagonists in this story, and to their concept of themselves.The typology of the melamed and the rabbi, neither of whom is given any personalidentity (the only exception is perhaps the narrator), their thinking, theirmentality, the contents of their monologues and the validity of what they say, areindeed a continuous play on the assumption that the reader has in mind therepeated ironic statement as to the uniqueness and holiness of the Jewish people.

Berlin uses this technique of foreshadowing in a meaningful way also withregard to his ironic interpretation of Kabalah. Departing from the melamed, thenarrator speaks of "the depth of things", alluding to the forthcoming elabora-tion on the Kabalah of which he also speaks in the same terminology.57 Speakingof the rabbi's wisdom, he calls it "deeper than hell", and subsequently demandsthat each act should be examined "in depth".58 All these enunciations are inpreparation for the final, "in-depth" analysis of Wessely's Divrei Shalom Ve'emet,and they are scattered throughout the satire as a leitmotif, and as a structuraldevice leading to the crux of the satire.

In addition, Berlin is using two metaphors for the same purpose. The first isthe metaphor of "zon", flock, which the narrator employs in reference to theJewish people. He takes the biblical expression "poor of the flock" (Zechariah11:7) and reduces it to its literal meaning. Thus the narrator alludes to hisattitude towards the people: they are indeed sheep.59 The same usage is to be

53Ktav Tosher, p. 2a: "Hanhagoteinu hanirzotlelodei me'onah."ilIbid., pp. 3b, 4a, 5a, 8a.6bIbid., p. 2a. See discussion above in the text related to n. 15.&tIbid., p. 2a. See also p. 5a-b: "There is no nation and language [cultural entity] which is

crowned with as many innumerable commandments and righteous customs as we are crowned,for we are a kingdom of priests and a holy people"; p. 8a: "We should be happy that wemerited to be such a holy people."

51 Ibid., p. 8b. On the Kabalah as containing "deep, deep things", see p. 1 la.bSIbid. For a similar use see also p. 10a, an example of a mystical interpretation of a biblical verse

that is employed as preparation for the general Kabalistic theory of Wessely.59I discussed Berlin's debasement of the sacred idiom at length in my paper in Tear Book XX.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from


104 Moshe Pellifound towards the end of the book where Berlin intensifies his intention andattitude by referring to the people of Israel in the traditional term "ZonQedoshim", a holy flock, which is led by the shepherd each one in his ownway.60 This positive term is based on Ezekiel 36:38. It is a derivation from theflock designated to be sacrificed on the altar before God, and is applied to theholy flock of God. However, in connection with "the poor of the flock", whichBerlin employs in the beginning of the satire, flock becomes a leitmotif, and asatiric device, which intensifies Berlin's total attack on and criticism of theJewish milieu.

Against this negative leitmotif he places a positive one - the metaphor "light".He associates it with Kabalah, and with the teaching of his mystical, Kabalistteacher, "Mori". Once the Kabalistic interpretation of Wessely is accepted,and once Wessely's innocence is acknowledged, light will reign in their dwellingplaces.61 Although there is a twist of irony in his conceptualisation of Kabalahand therefore of this light associated with it, the overall implication is of apositive term related to the light of Haskalah.62 A positive aspect of the satiric"Kabalah" is to be found in the figure of the mystical teacher, as discussedbelow.

IV. STRUGGLE ON BEHALF OF IDEOLOGY

Saul Berlin never intended this work of satire to be merely a defence of Wessely.Indeed, the end result is to some extent a criticism of Wessely who, in Berlin'sview, was not intended to carry the torch of Haskalah as was his "teacher".Believing that defence (of Wessely, that is) is the best form of attack, Saul Berlinused his book as a springboard to advocate his enlightenment views concerningcontemporary Judaism. He ridicules superstitious beliefs and practices; he de-rides and criticises the abundance of secondary and trivial religious injunctionsand ordinances and the casuistic manner in which they have been deduced; helampoons the religious teachers and religious education in toto; and he mocksat the Kabalah, especially in its far-fetched interpretation of the sacred texts.To be sure, these four general categories are based on Wessely's discussion inDivrei Shalom Ve'emet.63 Significantly, these four subjects recur also in the writingsof Hebrew Enlightenment of the time. Thus Berlin's work of fiction must beviewed against, and considered as part of the Hebrew Haskalah campaign inits endeavour to introduce changes within Jewish society.

As an author of a work of and for Enlightenment, Berlin does not restricthimself solely to the subjects which were raised by Wessely, but has indeed the

*°Ktav Tosher, p. 15b.61Ibid.,pp. lla, 12b, 14a, 15b, 16a. Based on Exodus 10:23.62On the metaphor 'light' and its instrumentality in the Haskalah literature see Yehudah

Friedlander, 'Livhinat Mahutah Shel Hame{aphorah "Or" Beshirat Hahaskalah Ha'ivrit' [AProbe into the Essence of the Metaphor 'Light' in the Poetry of Hebrew Haskalah], in BiqoretUfarshanut, IV-V (1974), pp. 53-63 [Hebrew].

63A1 though in a different order and a different emphasis of importance.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from



whole scope of Haskalah and its ideology in mind. Through the satire, and afterdeciphering the ironies, one should be able to note Berlin's views about Hoch-mah, human wisdom, as an ultimate authority,64 his anthropocentric conceptof God and man,65 his criticism of the rabbis,66 his anti-Galut [state of exile]attitude,67 and his allusions on borrowing from Christianity.68 I have dwelledextensively on these themes in Berlin's writings elsewhere.69

Neither did Berlin set himself to the defence of Wessely per se. Quite sur-prising for a work of defence, Berlin reproaches Wessely for attempting to clearthe road of Haskalah of stones when he was neither capable of nor destined forit.70 A thorough examination of the text in this perplexing phenomenon isrewarding. Using Kabalah terminology, Berlin suggests that Wessely was in-fluenced by "the writings of my teacher the godly Kabalist, the great rabbi,may God protect him and bless him". But Wessely has not fully comprehendedthe Kabalist and has taken from him only some of his secondary views. Theintention of the Kabalist-teacher, according to Berlin, was "to rid the vineyardfirst of the thorns, and only then to replant the vineyard anew. And he fencedit, and gathered out the stones thereof, and (only) later will he plant it with thechoicest vine."71 The vine, or the vineyard, are interpreted in the Kabalah assymbols of Kneset Yisra'el [the people of Israel].72 Thus that mysteriousteacher, called "Mori", my teacher, had in mind, according to the narrator,the re-shaping and re-forming of Judaism and the Jews.

The identity of the teacher who greatly influenced Wessely can be deducedfrom the text and its context. The narrator speaks of him as being anointed byGod with "the holy oil of the purity of idea [—] to examine everything whichhas been accepted and established, and is careful to do everything according to[the dictates of] time and place".73 Beneath the metaphors we are confrontedhere with Haskalah terminology which alludes to the ideological association of

6iKtav Tosher, pp. 2b, 5b.6Wid., p. 4b.66Ibid., p. 7b."Ibid., p. 4b, 5a. There is a very interesting theme which Berlin cites, regarding the suffering of

the Jews in exile, which is repeated in modern Hebrew literature by Hayim Hazaz in his story"Hadrashah" [The Sermon], that is, that the Jews who suffered persecutions were in effectdesiring them. While Berlin says it tongue-in-cheek, Hazaz' Yudqeh is quite serious about hisview.

6SIbid., p. 16b."See my article on Saul Berlin cited above in n. 2 ('Hareformah Hadatit' . . .), especially pp.

4-10.70See above n. 47 and related text.llKtav Tosher, pp. lla, 16b. The activities around the vine are based on Isaiah 5:2. "Mori", my

teacher, is the term which Rabbi Hayim Vital used to refer to his teacher, Rabbi Isaac Luria,Ha'ari. (See, for exampl e, his ' 'Eleh Toldot Yizhaq' [This is the Life story of Isaac], in SeferToldot Ha'ari [The Book of the Life story of Ha'ari], Jerusalem 1967, ed. Me'ir Bnayahu, pp.247 ff. See also pp. 315 ff.)

1%Zohar to the Pentateuch, Bereshit, Judah J. Rosenberg's edition, New York (reprinted, Jerusalem1966-1967), Parashat Vayehi, p. 199, to the verse "Oseri Lagefen 'iro . . .": "What is [the]vine? This is Kneset Yisra'el."

™Ktav Tosher, p. 12a: "[. . .] mibal'adei mori 'asher meshaho hashem beshemen qodesh tehorhara'yon, lehavi bechur habhinah kol 'asher yimaze natun lemunah qayam, venoten libo la'asotbechol davar lefi ha'et vehamaqom."

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from


106 Moshe Pellithe teacher. Furthermore, in the context of the discussion of the Kabalist-teacher, the name of Moshe Rabenu [our master, Moses] is mentioned a num-ber of times;74 however, only in the last four lines of the book do we get the clearhint: "And see what the Zohar said about Moshe and Messiah, and you shallfind out that a man like him was prepared [capable] to clean the road and toclear it of stones."75 Checking what the £ohar - that work of Jewish mysticism -said about Moshe and Messiah is not an easy task, yet is most enlightening. I didfind Berlin's allusion in the £ohar in Genesis 49:10; "The sceptre shall notdepart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until he come toShiloh." ^ohar has it as follows: "Lo yasur shevet mihudah. This is Messiahben David. Umehoqeq miben raglav. This is Messiah ben Yoseph. 'Ad ki yavoshiloh. This is Moshe." For the numerical value of the letters "Shiloh" and"Moshe" are identical.76 Indeed, it is in the figure of Moshe ben Menahem,Moses Mendelssohn, the teacher of the Hebrew Enlightenment, that Berlinfinds the dual representation of Moshe and Messiah; Berlin depicts MosheMendelssohn as the modern saviour of his people. The phraseology of clearingthe road of stones is applied quite often in the Hebrew Haskalah to expressMendelssohn's Enlightenment efforts.77 Berlin relates the "vineyard" metaphorto the metaphor "road", both of which signify Mendelssohn's Haskalah^ byusing the verb "SaQaL" (clear of stones) in both. By identifying Mendelssohnwith the figure of Moshe, Berlin was only following a trend which prevailedamong the Hebrew Maskilim.78 However, the comparison of Mendelssohn byway of Zohar to Moshe-Messiah is indeed Saul Berlin's contribution to the imageof Mendelssohn as seen by the Maskilim. Thus Berlin is saying that Wessely wastrying to follow in Mendelssohn's footsteps even though he was not destined todo so. "Only a man of his stature" is capable of such a messianic task.

The image of Moses Mendelssohn as seen by the Hebrew and Jewish Maskilimin Germany has been investigated in the past. It is enough to mention here themonumental work of Alexander Altmann on Mendelssohn,79 and the insight on

14Ktav Tosher, p. l l a , 16 b.™Ibid.,p. 16b.'l*£ohar, p. 199. The £ohar's text further alludes to Moshe and his ancestors. It is striking that

Berlin's allusion to the vine as being Kneset Yisra'el (n. 72) is to be found right next to thisallusion about Moshe.

77See my study 'Dmuto Shel Moshe Mendelssohn Kefi Shehi Mishtaqefet Bereshitah Shel SifrutHahaskalah Ha'ivrit Begermanyah (Hame'asef, 1784-1797)' [The Image of M.M. As Reflectedin the Beginning of Hebrew Haskalah Literature in Germany], in Proceedings of Fifth WorldCongress of Jewish Studies, III, Jerusalem 1972, pp. 269-282.

78Isaac Euchel uses the expression "the road which he cleared [Hebrew: 'Siqel'] for them" inhis biography of M.M., Rabenu Hehacham Moshe Ben Menahem [Our Wise Sage M.B.M.],Berlin 1788, p. 112 [Hebrew]. Berlin uses the same verb: 'ulesaqel hamesilah'. Euchel usesother metaphors and similes of "road" in relation to Mendelssohn's Enlightenment {ibid., pp.5, 111-113). In Hame'asef the same terminology is used: "This man Moshe cleared the road['Siqel Hamesilah'], lifted obstacle from the path of his nation, and he showed the right(righteous) way [. . .] and he said to them behold I cleared the road before you [. . . ] "{Hame'asef, V [1789], p. 188). See also Hame'asef, VI (1790), pp. 57-58.

"Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn. A Biographical Study, University of Alabama-London1973.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from



Mendelssohn's role in shaping the German Haskalah as viewed by Barzilay.80

I made a modest contribution to the understanding of Mendelssohn's image asseen by the Hebrew Maskilim in my Hebrew book on Mendelssohn.81 A recentarticle, published in this Year Book, by Lehmann, ought also to be mentionedin this regard.82 The image of Moses Mendelssohn as a "Moshe-figure" hasalready been established in the above studies.

It is for the first time, as far as I know, that the figure of Moses Mendelssohnis subtly associated with the image of the Messiah. This new, daring concep-tualisation of Moses Mendelssohn could not have been overtly or even covertlydelineated lest the orthodox, traditional elements come out with accusations ofheresy. Hence the very subtle use of Kabalah, not easily understood, made bythe erudite Rabbi Saul Berlin. Berlin's use of Kabalah is partially for satiricalpurposes, but significantly also for a message of Haskalah by keeping in the back-ground the figure of Moses Mendelssohn as a great teacher to be followed. Theunnamed Mendelssohn serves also as a unifying element in this satire, very muchlike the metaphors discussed previously. His writings, too, serve as an Enlighten-ment criterion. It adds a serious, meaningful dimension to an artistic, well-constructed and well-presented work of satire, the first of its kind in theearly Haskalah literature. Undoubtedly, it is one of the best works in Hebrewletters of its time.

Very skilfully, this satire reflects and preaches the ideology of Haskalah.Moreover, Ktav Tosher achieved an intensified projection of the spirit of the time.I find it principally in scepticism and in the ambiguity and contradiction, orparadox, which the author conceptualised as the banners of the modern timesof Enlightenment. Those are contrasted with the stable, meaningful world of thepast. Ironically, Berlin uses the tools of the past, the sacred literature of theJewish people, the books of Qphelet and £ohar, to make his satiric comment onJewish experience.

80Isaac Eisenstein-Barzilay, 'The Treatment of the Jewish Religion in the Literature of the BerlinHaskalah', Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, XXIV (1955), pp. 49-55.

81Moshe Pelli, Moshe Mendelssohn: Bechavlei Masoret [Moses Mendelssohn: Bonds of Tradition],Tel Aviv 1972, pp. 88-114 [Hebrew]. A version of this chapter appeared as a study cited inn. 77 above.

82James H. Lehmann, 'Maimonides, Mendelssohn and the Me'asfim. Philosophy and the Bio-graphical Imagination in the Early Haskalah', in LBI Tear Book XX{\915), pp. 87-108.

at Ohio State U



ownloaded from


aspects of hebrew enlightenment satire saul berlin: involvement … · 2016. 11. 29. · kernan...

Documents